In 1965 i was on the Uss Ranger and made a wide open flank run from south to North Vietnam. We started out about 20 miles ahead of The Big E .in about 2.5 hrs the enterprise went buy us and we so noticed there was no smoke. We felt kinda slow too.
I served aboard her in 74-75 . She routinely outran her escorts, it's hard to believe a ship of that magnitude could do more than 30 knots, but she could! She carried us through two typhoons in the west pacific. They could,nt convert her to a museum because there had to be large sections cut out because of radiation contamination in all the associated componants that have to come out, and all them with the reactors are well below decks. She was commissioned for a twenty year service life, and served 52. Proud to have served aboard - Fair winds and following seas.
Some of you don't deal well with reality at all... This is NOT Star Trek, this is NOT glamour. This is real life and we are in the middle of very hard economic times and a transitional period in the military. It's neither practical nor safe to preserve every piece of equipment. 1) A lot of those museum ships are barely hanging on there. They're nonprofit and a lot of them -- including the preserved carriers -- are hanging on by their fingernails. The money is just not there in this economy and they're private groups separate from the government and direct federal financial support from what I understand. It would be a massive amount of money to preserve any of the supercarriers and it's just not going to happen. The USS Midway will probably be the last AND largest aircraft carrier saved from scrapping or scuttling. 2) The supercarriers going back to USS Forrestal have plenty of details in the naval architecture that are still used in the current Nimitz-class ships as well as the upcoming USS Ford. The US Navy doesn't want that on display for enemies to explore. It makes it easier to exploit potential weak points for destroying in-service ships. 3) The Enterprise is a nuke ship and that in-and-of itself is a bigger environmental mess that has to be cared for and disposed of with even greater care than the oil-burning ships. This ship is a test case on a level greater than what's been done... most of the nuke ships cut up and disposed of so far have been much smaller submarines that only have ONE nuclear reactor to take care of! Enterprise has EIGHT reactors which creates special circumstances -- a) The fact that the Enterprise hull has to be cut through multiple levels to reach the reactors themselves means the ship will resemble Swiss cheese by the time the prep work to remove the individual reactors is over... b) It will NOT be economical to restore/rebuild the ship once the work is done making holes for the heavy lift cranes that will remove the reactors... c) This is a test case and rehearsal for what will be done with the Nimitz-class nuclear carriers to follow. Enterprise will almost undoubtedly be a bit different AND more expensive to 'denuke' since it has eight smaller reactors to dispose of versus the two reactors installed in the Nimitz-class ships. Costs of maintaining the Enterprise and the very real wear-and-tear on her 50+year-old reactor plants were the reasons the Enterprise was retired in the first place! d) Even if the Enterprise had been saved as a museum ships, the reactors can't stay in the hull. They're a toxic disaster waiting to happen until they're safely removed and securely disposed of. It's far easier to take apart, reassemble, and preserve a nuclear submarine like the Nautilus once it's been denuked. That submarine is a small fraction of the size of the 1123-ft long, 80,000+-ton monster that CVN-65 is. And yes, the Nautilus itself is on museum display. It's been in a museum for at least 3 decades now...
AvengerII Thanks for the info. I was just wondering why if some US naval ships were turned into floating museums, why not the Big E? Perhaps the difference I didn't consider was that ships that were turned into museums were mostly non-nuke powered like USS Midway and USS Missouri to name a few. Its the sentiments of those who loved and/or traveled with these ships wished to have it preserved. But practicality, safety, security, and economic-wise would be another issue to consider. We can't hold on to a dead asset if it would be costly to preserve and won't make money as a tourist attraction or otherwise. Nevertheless, its still a pity we have to say farewell to the Big E.
@@alexandermakrianis They are all iconic. USS Enterprise because of her uniqueness in looks and size, still the longest warships to serve in the US fleet. Plus because of the previous WW2 USS Enterprise in which nothing more needs to be said.
@@CLVASHJBHWFS I wish they could preserve the Big E, but the problem is with removing the cores from the nuclear reactors. They have to cut the ship apart to remove these and the process is very significant. It would be too expensive to put it back together just to persevere it. When they recored the reactors in 1989-90 they almost decided to decommission the ship due to the extensive work needed and cost but went through with it anyway. It's too bad, because it's such an iconic ship. I wish they would save one of the other ones though.
@@alexandermakrianis Yeah. I think we are finding that out with the UK's nuclear submarine. Dreadnought is still afloat and been decomissioned longer than in service. Forrestols, Big E, Kittyhawks, Nimitz group of aircraft carriers are so iconic and important. Don't do a Britain and not save one of them as we did with post Dreadnought battleships, we don't have one of them. Just save a bit of her then. A?
Do not worry the New Enterprise is on the ways at Huntington Ingalls a few Dry docks down from the old Enterprise she will be the third Ford class carrier after the new John F. Kennedy the pentagon did a 2 carrier deal with H.I. and that will cover I believe, the two after the new "Big E", So Enterprise will sail again!
You're living in a fantasy world... The modern carriers cost at least $5 billion to build brand-new. The yearly costs of operating these ships is $160million PER ship which is why the only US has ships like these. There was a half-hearted notion that the US would sell Argentina the old Forrestal-class carrier Saratoga but that didn't happen obviously. The Argentine Navy had a much smaller, World War II-era British carrier but they didn't have the money to support and maintain that ship let alone a much larger supercarrier! Most nations can't afford to build ships like this let alone be gifted a retired relic and expect to be able operate them reliably. There's also the fact that large pieces of the technology used to build these ships are still used to make the newer era ships. It wouldn't be smart or advisable to sell an older ship that a potential enemy could examine and use to plan the destruction of the currently in-service ships...
AvengerII Make that more like $12.7Billion per ship to build. Plus $4.3Billion development costs and then 25 years later another $5Billion to refuel. We in Britain never have seen the strategic or operational benefits in nuclear powered surface ships (unlike our submarines which are all nuclear). We have just floated out our new carrier (at 70,000 Tons) HMS Queen Elizabeth and we are building two for £7Billion ($11Billion). Our crew size will be some 1600 on full surge compared to 4.500 on the Ford Class and yet our sortie rate will exceed that of the Nimitz over 24 hours. There is a debate going on in the US about whether 'Supercarriers' are now just too expensive and too big and too much in one place. One ex Admiral said (on seeing our ship being built) that he would rather have two QE Class than one Ford class and save money doing it. I am in NO way disrespecting US military or the new ships I am just comparing how we have had to do it given the economic disasters of 2009 and how we see our military strategy for the next 20 years.
im gonna have to agree with ray's comment. It was this very navy ship alone that set the benchmark for all other Enterprises to aspire to including the one we all know and love aswell as the hated one.
+ramairgto72 Shadow of what? :) Objects have shadows, so wheres the object? That thing moving incredible fast, look the birds around how slowly they moving.
In 1965 i was on the Uss Ranger and made a wide open flank run from south to North Vietnam. We started out about 20 miles ahead of The Big E .in about 2.5 hrs the enterprise went buy us and we so noticed there was no smoke. We felt kinda slow too.
RIP Enterprise, it's a real shame she wasn't turned into a museum, had the pleasure of seeing her in Portsmouth UK a few year back
I served aboard her in 74-75 . She routinely outran her escorts, it's hard to believe a ship of that magnitude could do more than 30 knots, but she could! She carried us through two typhoons in the west pacific.
They could,nt convert her to a museum because there had to be large sections cut out because of radiation contamination in all the associated componants that have to come out, and all them with the reactors are well below decks. She was commissioned for a twenty year service life, and served 52.
Proud to have served aboard - Fair winds and following seas.
They should remove the Island,and make it a museum
They can't after 50 years the 8 reactors leaked radiation into the hull some rooms in the ship are filled with concrete
While other Navy ships are turned into museum or preserved as tourist attraction, this one (the Big E) was scraped. What a pity.
Some of you don't deal well with reality at all...
This is NOT Star Trek, this is NOT glamour. This is real life and we are in the middle of very hard economic times and a transitional period in the military. It's neither practical nor safe to preserve every piece of equipment.
1) A lot of those museum ships are barely hanging on there. They're nonprofit and a lot of them -- including the preserved carriers -- are hanging on by their fingernails. The money is just not there in this economy and they're private groups separate from the government and direct federal financial support from what I understand.
It would be a massive amount of money to preserve any of the supercarriers and it's just not going to happen. The USS Midway will probably be the last AND largest aircraft carrier saved from scrapping or scuttling.
2) The supercarriers going back to USS Forrestal have plenty of details in the naval architecture that are still used in the current Nimitz-class ships as well as the upcoming USS Ford. The US Navy doesn't want that on display for enemies to explore. It makes it easier to exploit potential weak points for destroying in-service ships.
3) The Enterprise is a nuke ship and that in-and-of itself is a bigger environmental mess that has to be cared for and disposed of with even greater care than the oil-burning ships. This ship is a test case on a level greater than what's been done... most of the nuke ships cut up and disposed of so far have been much smaller submarines that only have ONE nuclear reactor to take care of! Enterprise has EIGHT reactors which creates special circumstances --
a) The fact that the Enterprise hull has to be cut through multiple levels to reach the reactors themselves means the ship will resemble Swiss cheese by the time the prep work to remove the individual reactors is over...
b) It will NOT be economical to restore/rebuild the ship once the work is done making holes for the heavy lift cranes that will remove the reactors...
c) This is a test case and rehearsal for what will be done with the Nimitz-class nuclear carriers to follow. Enterprise will almost undoubtedly be a bit different AND more expensive to 'denuke' since it has eight smaller reactors to dispose of versus the two reactors installed in the Nimitz-class ships. Costs of maintaining the Enterprise and the very real wear-and-tear on her 50+year-old reactor plants were the reasons the Enterprise was retired in the first place!
d) Even if the Enterprise had been saved as a museum ships, the reactors can't stay in the hull. They're a toxic disaster waiting to happen until they're safely removed and securely disposed of. It's far easier to take apart, reassemble, and preserve a nuclear submarine like the Nautilus once it's been denuked. That submarine is a small fraction of the size of the 1123-ft long, 80,000+-ton monster that CVN-65 is. And yes, the Nautilus itself is on museum display. It's been in a museum for at least 3 decades now...
AvengerII Thanks for the info. I was just wondering why if some US naval ships were turned into floating museums, why not the Big E? Perhaps the difference I didn't consider was that ships that were turned into museums were mostly non-nuke powered like USS Midway and USS Missouri to name a few. Its the sentiments of those who loved and/or traveled with these ships wished to have it preserved. But practicality, safety, security, and economic-wise would be another issue to consider. We can't hold on to a dead asset if it would be costly to preserve and won't make money as a tourist attraction or otherwise. Nevertheless, its still a pity we have to say farewell to the Big E.
+abeamarra Because she's nuclear. The reactor's have to be removed and for that, she need's to be cut open.
+abeamarra the u.s.s. Missouri is a battleship not a carrier
Norm. Panganiban I know. But she's a Navy ship and a museum as well. Its just an example I wanted to point out.
Next the first space craft enterprise when we develop warp and impulse drives.
Aah, don't scrap her! She is an icon. Said from a Briton. Save SS United States too. For a Country like the US, surely you can do this!
CLVASHJBHWFS especially for ship lovers.😢🔨🚢.
I wish that we could save at least one of the remaining cold war era carriers, either Enterprise, Kitty Hawk, or JFK.
@@alexandermakrianis They are all iconic. USS Enterprise because of her uniqueness in looks and size, still the longest warships to serve in the US fleet. Plus because of the previous WW2 USS Enterprise in which nothing more needs to be said.
@@CLVASHJBHWFS I wish they could preserve the Big E, but the problem is with removing the cores from the nuclear reactors. They have to cut the ship apart to remove these and the process is very significant. It would be too expensive to put it back together just to persevere it. When they recored the reactors in 1989-90 they almost decided to decommission the ship due to the extensive work needed and cost but went through with it anyway. It's too bad, because it's such an iconic ship. I wish they would save one of the other ones though.
@@alexandermakrianis Yeah. I think we are finding that out with the UK's nuclear submarine. Dreadnought is still afloat and been decomissioned longer than in service. Forrestols, Big E, Kittyhawks, Nimitz group of aircraft carriers are so iconic and important. Don't do a Britain and not save one of them as we did with post Dreadnought battleships, we don't have one of them. Just save a bit of her then. A?
That 24 Billion is initially coming from our tax dollars. They aren't generated new income.
Before the starship USSA Enterprise
Do not worry the New Enterprise is on the ways at Huntington Ingalls a few Dry docks down from the old Enterprise she will be the third Ford class carrier after the new John F. Kennedy the pentagon did a 2 carrier deal with H.I. and that will cover I believe, the two after the new "Big E", So Enterprise will sail again!
Going miss you big ghost love you so much and still bad ass ship
what happened to america??? the first ever nuke powered ship to be scrapped for nothing
top gun
Hampton Roads news always was dumbed down
SOU VIDRADO NESSAS MAQUINAS
Why not sell it? It could be rebuilt by whoever buys it.
You're living in a fantasy world... The modern carriers cost at least $5 billion to build brand-new. The yearly costs of operating these ships is $160million PER ship which is why the only US has ships like these.
There was a half-hearted notion that the US would sell Argentina the old Forrestal-class carrier Saratoga but that didn't happen obviously. The Argentine Navy had a much smaller, World War II-era British carrier but they didn't have the money to support and maintain that ship let alone a much larger supercarrier!
Most nations can't afford to build ships like this let alone be gifted a retired relic and expect to be able operate them reliably.
There's also the fact that large pieces of the technology used to build these ships are still used to make the newer era ships. It wouldn't be smart or advisable to sell an older ship that a potential enemy could examine and use to plan the destruction of the currently in-service ships...
AvengerII Plus nuclear reactor experience so you dont blow up a whole city or get infected by nuclear radiation.
AvengerII That's true, still it seems that the NATO nations or Australia could use such a ship.
AvengerII
Make that more like $12.7Billion per ship to build. Plus $4.3Billion development costs and then 25 years later another $5Billion to refuel. We in Britain never have seen the strategic or operational benefits in nuclear powered surface ships (unlike our submarines which are all nuclear). We have just floated out our new carrier (at 70,000 Tons) HMS Queen Elizabeth and we are building two for £7Billion ($11Billion). Our crew size will be some 1600 on full surge compared to 4.500 on the Ford Class and yet our sortie rate will exceed that of the Nimitz over 24 hours. There is a debate going on in the US about whether 'Supercarriers' are now just too expensive and too big and too much in one place. One ex Admiral said (on seeing our ship being built) that he would rather have two QE Class than one Ford class and save money doing it. I am in NO way disrespecting US military or the new ships I am just comparing how we have had to do it given the economic disasters of 2009 and how we see our military strategy for the next 20 years.
it's going to the scrap yard to be dismantled into scrap
2016 and counting
USS Enterprise? Where are all the phasorz and lazorz? U need to install them or Kirk won't be able to set them to maximum :3
im gonna have to agree with ray's comment.
It was this very navy ship alone that set the benchmark for all other Enterprises to aspire to including the one we all know and love aswell as the hated one.
1:02 what the fuck was that who dive into the sea?
+Mario Tutti
Shadow .
+ramairgto72 Shadow of what? :)
Objects have shadows, so wheres the object? That thing moving incredible fast, look the birds around how slowly they moving.
Mario Tutti
Not sure friend, but the sun is behind the camera.
ramairgto72 Shadows cannot fly, there's only on the wall or other surfaces. That thing over there is not a shadow. Even the eagle cannot dive so fast.
Mario Tutti
It was prob a bird casting its shadow ..
Please don't "foil hat" me.
Cheers.